Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is equally well informed on railway issues. The taxpayer will certainly get 50 per cent of the development of property rights which, as the noble Lord, indicated, both at Stratford and King's Cross are likely to be substantial. As I indicated, any process by which the company is sold—if it is—would be open, transparent and subject to competitive bids.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 52, the following Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills: L. Acton, V. Bledisloe, L. Campbell of Alloway, L. Christopher, V. Colville of Culross, E. Dundee, B. Fookes, L. Janner of Braunstone, B. Mallalieu, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L. Razzall, L. Rodger of Earlsferry;
	That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman; and
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments.
	I should say, yet again, that we have already published the expected costs of issuing identity cards. The current best estimate of the annual average running costs of issuing identity cards and passports to British citizens is £584 million from the start of the identity cards scheme. This is the cost of issuing identity cards and passports, as well as the cost of running and compiling the national identity register and providing an identity verification service.
	The running costs of the identity cards scheme will be funded from fees charged to passport and identity card applicants or users of the identity verification service or from within existing departmental budgets. The fact that the bulk of the costs will be covered from fees means that, without these fees, there simply is no vast pot of money that could be diverted to other uses, such as more police officers or more immigration officers.
	We have published the estimated unit cost of the joint passport and identity card package, which is £93 for both documents—a passport and an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also made it clear that it will be affordable to issue a stand-alone identity card at a fee of around £30.
	The new Home Office agency to be established to issue identity cards and to incorporate the existing United Kingdom Passport Service will publish corporate and business plans as well as annual accounts. A full business case will go through extensive internal and Treasury review and challenge prior to contract sign on identity cards, and the whole identity cards programme is subject to regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.
	As I made clear when we discussed Amendment No. 70 on Report, the Government do not accept that there is a need for such a complicated report of the estimated costs of the identity card scheme as set out in the proposed new clause—together with any consequential costs falling on other departments—before the Bill can come into effect. Nor do we consider that the parliamentary procedure proposed in Amendment No. 70 is appropriate, as it cuts across existing procedure for estimates of government expenditure to be approved in the other place. The Government's view is that it would be wrong for the identity cards legislation to be incapable of being commenced fully until a report on cost estimates was completed, as set out in Amendment No. 70. For this reason, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 53 in the other place.
	The Government have listened, however, to what has been said in both Houses about the need to be reassured further on costs. We accept that there is a legitimate public interest in the estimated costs of the identity card scheme and it is for that reason that the Government agreed to the alternative amendment in lieu, Amendment No. 70A. This requires regular reports of the expected costs of the identity card scheme to be published and laid before Parliament. Indeed, unlike what is proposed in Amendment No. 70, these reports will need to be published not just once but every six months and so will provide reassurance that any changes in the estimated costs, whether the estimates increase or decrease, will be reported on at least a half-yearly basis. The reports will include the estimated costs for the 10 years from the laying of the report and so will give a clear view on the future estimated costs once the scheme is fully rolled out and will cover the expected validity period of 10 years for identity cards.
	Amendment No. 70A also recognises that we must not provide information that could undermine obtaining the best value for money when we go out to the open tender for the procurement of the different elements of the identity card scheme. The amendment means that, while procurement is in progress, any commercially confidential breakdown of costs will not be published. But, and it is an important but, the requirement to report on a six-monthly basis means that any such exclusion will be reviewed and will apply for only as long as there is genuine reason to safeguard value for money so as to protect the taxpayer and the public who will benefit from the identity card scheme.
	In summary, we are now persuaded that we should include a reference on the face of the Bill to publish regularly, indeed at six-monthly intervals, reports which would be laid before Parliament of the likely costs of the identity card scheme. The procedure included in Amendment No. 70A is, we think, sensible and balanced and would not put value for money at risk. On that basis, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70 and do agree to Amendment No. 70A proposed by the Commons in lieu of those amendments.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I should make it clear from the very beginning that I do not oppose the Government's Motion A, and on that basis I invite my colleagues also not to oppose the Government's Motion A. I think it right that I should put on record our views, particularly on the amendment in lieu.
	As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 70A was proposed in the other place in lieu of our amendments. It was technically, as the noble Baroness explained, not a government-led amendment but was tabled by Mr Frank Dobson. It is not right today that we should return to rehearsing arguments for greater transparency and openness about the costs associated with the ID card scheme. The Government conceded that principle in another place when they supported Mr Dobson's amendment. The issue for today is whether Amendment No. 70A achieves transparency and openness in sufficient measure.
	I took the opportunity to go to another place on the occasion of its consideration of Lords amendments and I watched Mr Dobson move his amendment. I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity or his belief that he was making very significant progress towards transparency; I just think he was a little over-optimistic. I think his amendment is a little too timid—not a word I would normally dare put in the same sentence as Mr Dobson, but let me remind the House that that refers to his amendment and not to the gentleman himself.
	When the Bill left your Lordships' House, it required a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the ID card scheme. Amendment No. 70A concentrates only on the costs of the scheme and has nothing about benefits. That is not surprising, because the amendment refers to costs incurred only by the Home Office and the designated document authorities. Our Amendment No. 70 was very clear in requiring the Government to reveal all the costs to be incurred across the whole of government. We know that if the ID card scheme is to yield the benefits that the Government have claimed—for example, in benefits, entitlements and identity fraud—costs will be incurred in other departments and agencies. Our amendment took a holistic view of the costs and the benefits of the ID card scheme. Mr Dobson's Amendment No. 70A takes a narrow view from the Home Office's perspective.
	Amendment No. 70A, as the Minister explained, has the advantage of providing regular, rolling 10-year estimates of costs on a six-monthly basis. This is a valuable feature. It talks about estimates of "public expenditure", which is not defined. I am not clear whether that is expected to be on a cash basis or a resource accounts basis. Our amendment was quite specific that both types of figure were required and that both revenue and capital costs were required. That may seem arcane, but if a PFI-type financing deal were used to pay for the ID card scheme, it is not clear that Amendment No. 70A would deliver the transparency that we all seek.
	The Minister will not be surprised that we find subsection (4) of Amendment No. 70A difficult to swallow. We have tried hard and we are managing to do it—just. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to exclude any information that he considers would be prejudicial to securing best value from the use of public money. We have disagreed with the Government on the validity of withholding procurement information from Parliament, given that they are purchasing in competitive markets. We fear that that subsection could be abused, especially as Amendment No. 70A also lacks the mandatory review by the Comptroller and Auditor General that featured in our amendment. But I have listened to and, as always, accept the assurances given by the Minister. I also accept that our C&AG has the power to examine what he likes, including whether information is properly withheld. We hope that, given the high profile of this issue, the C&AG has already pencilled in a regular look at the Home Office's six-monthly reports to Parliament.
	Lastly, and crucially, Amendment No. 70A lacks the formal approval mechanism by another place before the Act can be implemented. The question will be whether the rolling six-monthly reports are an adequate substitute for formal approval. That will keep the issue of costs in the spotlight. A formal approval mechanism remains the preference of these Benches, but we should accept the views of the other place on the matter.
	In summary, Amendment No. 70A falls short of the ideals that underpinned our Amendment No. 70, but we should recognise that we have achieved as much progress towards the principles of openness and transparency as the Government are prepared to allow. On that basis, we did not table our own Motion, and we do not oppose the Government's Motion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 4A.
	Amendment No. 4 limited the public interest test as defined in Clause 1(4), in so far as public services go to preventing illegal or fraudulent access to public services. This would potentially limit the benefits to the public from the introduction of identity cards supported by a national identity register. I hope that all noble Lords, on all sides of the House, would want to see the identity card scheme used to help make the delivery of public services better, not just as a way of combating fraud.
	It is surely in everyone's interest to help deliver public services more efficiently and effectively. That must be in the interests of the public, both as taxpayers and as users of services. Inefficiency in public services is of no benefit to anyone—apart perhaps from the fraudster.
	Transforming public services will be helped by being able to provide a secure, reliable and fast way of confirming identity. That is why we believe it would be wrong to regard the use of identity cards as simply a guard against fraud. Of course combating fraud will be one of the purposes of the identity cards scheme—and a very important one—but not the only one.
	We believe that the public will want the introduction of identity cards to be used as a way of helping public services deliver quicker and better services. This, for example, could include the future development of services over the Internet. We see real advantages in being able to fill in one form instead of many. We would go further and say that it would be possible to create a single "one-stop" procedure for updating addresses on government department records, so that when someone moves house and notifies the new address to the National Identity Register that new address is notified onwards to the departments dealing with national insurance, pensions, driving licences and so on. That would make life easier for the citizen and would ensure that other departments did not continue to hold out-of-date and inaccurate records.
	Such a scheme would be designed to enable more efficient and effective delivery of public services and to help the citizen. It would be hard to argue that it was needed just as a fraud prevention measure, which is what Amendment No. 4 would suggest. For any requirement to use identity cards to access public services there are already provisions and safeguards at Clauses 15 and 16 and it could not be a requirement to produce an identity card to access free public services or to claim any state benefits until we move to compulsion when everyone would have an identity card.
	So, by restricting the statutory purposes of the scheme only to combating illegal or fraudulent access to public services, we would be defining the card scheme far too narrowly and would risk restricting the usefulness of the identity cards scheme to the public, which, after all, is one of the key purposes of the identity cards scheme.
	We believe that we should not prevent the identity cards scheme being used as a way of helping to deliver better public services. It is not just a question of combating fraudulent use of public services, we also should be using the identity cards scheme to help to transform services.
	When these amendments were considered in the other place, Amendment No. 4 was rejected without a Division. I invite this House to do the same, as it is clearly not in the public interest to make this change.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 4A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am coming to it, as the bishop said. "Voluntary" means "voluntary"; "must" means "must"—that is rolling out the logic. To make matters abundantly clear, the manifesto talks specifically of introducing ID cards on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. The Bill, however, via designation, which the Government have made absolutely plain they intend to implement vis-à-vis passports as soon as practical, would mean that ID cards would be rolled out initially on a compulsory basis as people renewed their passports. You could not renew them unless you had an ID card—it is as simple as that. Last time, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made that this point:
	"The indirect compulsion denies me the right to travel if I apply only for a passport that I do want, but not for an identity card that I do not want".—[Official Report, 23/1/06; col. 974.]
	As the Home Affairs Committee said about ID cards:
	"For most people, to travel abroad and to drive are fundamentals. It cannot be argued that these would be given up voluntarily. To describe the first phase of the Government's proposals as 'voluntary' stretches the English language to breaking point".
	Even John Denham, chairman of the committee and a strong supporter of ID cards, owned up to that when the Commons debated this amendment on 13 February. It is also significant that the Home Secretary did not hide behind doublespeak when he spoke against the Lords amendment on that day.
	It ill behoves this place in particular to add to public disconnectedness from politics in this country—see the Power Commission report last week—to deny what is clear in the manifesto. It was Humpty Dumpty, was it not, who said:
	"When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
	And we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
	Quite apart from this, we on this side of the House also believe that the ID cards scheme, on merits, needs to be voluntary unless, of course, primary legislation is later introduced to make it compulsory—a principle that the Government conceded in the Commons with regard to Clause 6.
	It is no longer clear to me just what benefits the compulsory scheme would bestow, just as it has never been clear what it is likely to cost. That, too, points to a voluntary card. As the Bill has progressed, the case for it has become less clear. We do not hear much about the impact on terrorism these days. Stella Rimington and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew may have something to do with that. Indeed, some police seem to be having second thoughts, especially in terms of the potential effects on already weak relations with the public, particularly among the minority communities.
	As for crime, not much about that was heard during the Commons debate on our amendment, nor has been heard today. Social security fraud is still about falsifying one's circumstances in more than 90 per cent of cases. That leaves immigration, where different documentation prevails, and migrant workers, where there will be some modest assistance.
	Even the Prime Minister, defending at length his record on civil liberties in The Observer on 26 February, could muster only this to justify his grandiose ID cards scheme:
	"On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come. Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure. And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one".
	There was nothing about compulsion or, indeed, much else. All the cards I carry I will still have to carry if I have an ID card.
	When I spoke at the Westminster Foundation conference on 14 February, along with Andy Burnham, Home Office Minister responsible for ID cards and passports, he more than once justified compulsion by reference to the fact that, as he put it, more than 70 per cent of the public support the introduction of ID cards. If the Government are so confident of that, why the need for compulsion? But the latest news on the polling front from an in-depth YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph last Monday shows support down to 52 per cent. As Professor Anthony King explained:
	"People doubt whether cards will materially assist in the war on terror and clearly think that a national scheme will be shot full of holes. Yet a small majority, 52 per cent, persist in saying that the cards should be brought in. They appear not to have noticed the contradiction between their long-standing predilection for cards and their up-to-date assessment of what having the cards will actually mean".
	For example, 80 per cent of them believe in the corruptibility of the cards and 75 per cent in the likely substantial cost hike. In effect, as happened in New South Wales, the more the public get to learn and understand about compulsory cards, the less they like them. I will wager the Minister that, in a month or two, a poll will show more people agin the cards than for them. We will talk afterwards.
	Another reason for keeping the scheme voluntary is that there is still so much muddle, even at ministerial level. For example, Charles Clarke said in the Commons in the debate on 13 February in relation to the information on the register:
	"Individuals . . . will not give more information to the state than they do at present. That is an important point to grasp".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1177.]
	That point has been repeatedly made and has been made in this House. But what he has not grasped is that all the audit trail data—all the validation information provided by an applicant or collected from an applicant by the registrar to verify the facts on the register, plus the security information, plus a complete set of personal reference numbers—will be recorded on every one of us. That is not information currently required for a passport, nor is the requirement in Clause 1 of the Bill where we have to give the address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said a few minutes ago, of every place we have ever resided, whether in the UK or elsewhere and how long we resided there. That is not required for passports or for any of the other documentation referred to by the Home Secretary in the Commons.
	I also note that the international civil aviation organisations all call for two digitised biometrics and a picture, whereas we are going for 13. Take the issue of driving licences, to which the noble Baroness referred today. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, they could be designated, which would mean that we would have to have ID cards when we renewed our licences. In the 13 February debate, at col. 1175, the Home Secretary said that he had looked actively at designating driving licences but had decided not to do so. However, the very next day Mr Burnham stated:
	"We haven't yet, at this point, taken a decision whether or not . . . the criminal record disclosure process should become part of the designated document process, and that is also true of the driving licence".
	That is a very big difference between two Ministers of the realm responsible for this ID card scheme on crucial policy.
	We could also take the vexed issue of access to the ID register by foreign persons and governments. One of his own Back Benchers pointedly asked the Home Secretary on 13 February whether it would be possible for the Americans to intrude on and get information from the ID register. The Home Secretary categorically denied, at col. 1177, that there would be any such access. In fact, that is definitely not the case. Clause 20 of the original Bill, headed,
	"Prevention and detection of crime",
	authorises the provision of information on the register if it is provided for any of the purposes specified in Section 17 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That, as I have said before on this Bill, drives a coach and horses through protection of our ID card data, because it expressly entitles any foreign individual or authority access to the ID—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite who have a great interest in this amendment. However, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I put one or two issues on the record before the debate widened out. I make it clear that on this occasion I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and oppose the Government's Motion. That is the only time today when I shall oppose a government Motion.
	I support every argument that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made. It would not be right to take the House's time in repeating those arguments. I will confine myself to addressing another matter of parliamentary procedure to which the Minister and one or two of her colleagues have referred in previous debates on the Bill and, more recently, in their contributions to national newspapers. The Minister has said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is in breach of the Salisbury convention. Let me meet that accusation head on. I say very firmly that this House should not entertain that view. The Salisbury convention, to which we continue to subscribe, is an agreement between the Labour and Conservative Parties in this House that neither party would, when in opposition, vote at Second Reading against legislation that was set out in the governing party's manifesto or seek a wrecking amendment to it. Many argue that the Salisbury convention may have evolved with time, and certainly with the change to this House in 1999, but the formulation I have given was the maximalist one. To be as fair as possible to the Government I will, for the sake of this argument, apply that today.
	What did the Labour manifesto say on ID cards? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted the precise words. It states:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	Nothing in this amendment obstructs that manifesto commitment. The Salisbury convention means that this House could not block a genuinely voluntary Bill. But that is not what this amendment does. If this amendment is passed, the Government can still introduce identity cards. They can still back them up with a national register. They can still roll them out on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. Indeed, responding to a comment made by the Minister in another place, Mr Burnham, on the radio this morning, they can still roll them out incrementally—that is still perfectly possible. There is nothing in this amendment against the Salisbury doctrine, but there is a great deal in it for the voluntary approach promised in Labour's manifesto. This House is surely entitled to stick to its guns on a matter which the Constitution Committee of this House said represents a fundamental change in the relationship between state and a people, and where that fundamental change was not set out in the manifesto.
	Ministers have said, including the noble Baroness at other stages of the Bill, that the fact that Ministers have made speeches about a compulsory scheme is sufficient to bring that part of the manifesto within the Salisbury convention, and that we on the Conservative Benches should therefore accept the Government's proposals for compulsion by stealth. We believe that is a poor argument by the noble Baroness's extremely high standards, but that it is certainly poor by anyone's standards. Since when, one might ask, does a ministerial interview or a past failed Bill bind this House? Ministers had a chance to state clearly and openly in the manifesto that if elected they would force us all to be registered and to pay for an ID card with our passport before being given the freedom to go abroad for work, for a holiday, or for whatever reason—but they did not take that opportunity. That was their choice. Having made that choice, they should not present legislation that is not on a voluntary basis but on the basis of compulsion, call on the Salisbury convention, and expect those of us on these Benches to cave in. That is not the way that Parliament has ever worked; and I hope that it will never work that way.
	Let us consider for just a moment what the consequences might be in the very dim and distant future if one accepted today that things should be allowed to work in that way. What if a government deliberately left out of a manifesto any mention of plans that Ministers had in mind—but about which they did not wish to put off or deter the voters? If they did so and were then allowed to claim the protection of the Salisbury convention because Ministers had made speeches on the matter, it would be an incentive and a reward for being economical with the truth. Surely, none of us would want that as part of our system of government. That is for future consideration, but it could be a consequence of today accepting any argument that we on these Benches should be bound on this Motion by the Salisbury convention.
	Let us hear no more from any quarter, either in Parliament or in newspaper articles, about any so-called breach of the Salisbury convention by these Benches. There is none in this case; and there will be none. I firmly support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may, from these Benches, express my support for this amendment. As many of my noble friends know, I take great exception to the idea of identity cards because, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—our historian—I believe that it flies in the face of the great traditions of this country. The fact that we are nation built on the common law is not without significance. The common law was built on the acceptance and understanding that we should approach power with a degree of scepticism. Unlike the rest of Europe, which had the Napoleonic code, we in Britain, including Scotland, incorporated into our system of law the idea that power can be abused and that, therefore, there should always be a burden on the state to prove things. Citizens did not have to go around proving their existence or allowing their status to be challenged. What is interesting about that is that it created the spirit of the British character and is why I believe that we never surrendered to totalitarianism in any form.
	In this country we have not had sufficient debate about the implications of the Bill for the relationship between the citizen and the state. The state is there at our behest. The citizen is not there at the behest of the state. That is what is not understood by the Government, I am afraid, in creating this change, which came about unfortunately because of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to—that those who are involved in the incredible business of new technology can become excited about it. I know that from my own field—I chair the Human Genetics Commission. It is very easy for those involved to say, "We can do this", and persuade people that because you can do something you should do it. This is one of those areas where the Government were persuaded that because this could be done technologically, it should be done. That is a serious error.
	Let us look for a minute at voluntarism and compulsion. I take the view, as do others, that we are seeing compulsion introduced by the back door. I am not making the interpretation as a lawyer would, but I would easily be able to persuade a jury that my party's manifesto said that ID cards would be voluntary and that there would be legislation before they could be introduced on a compulsory basis. That is what the majority of people who read that manifesto would have taken from it.
	In this new method of acquiring the card, we are seeing compulsion, because if I apply for a new passport, which I am due to in a couple of years, I will be required to have an identity card—and I do not want one. There will be no opportunity for me to say that I do not want that additional element. I happen to believe that the new, upgraded passport is a good thing. I have no objection to the improvement in a passport that contains new material, but I object to an internal passport in our country, in our nation. We should be deeply concerned about that.
	By designating documents such as a passport, a driving licence or the check certificate that people have to obtain from the Criminal Records Bureau for certain jobs, the Home Office will be able to force more than 95 per cent of the population onto the National Identity Register. Let us not pretend that there is no compulsion and that it was not referred to in the manifesto. If I want to travel abroad, drive my car or keep my job, you can be sure that I will have no choice.
	That is not the way to legislate and that is why this amendment is right and absolutely does not offend against the Salisbury convention—and it is the duty of this House, in its care for the rule of law, the common law and the traditions of our nation, to take exception to the compulsory nature of these cards.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about two different things. He is right to say that we may need a certain amount of time to introduce what he describes as complex technology. Incidentally, the Government keep telling us that the technology is extremely simple and that the Passport Office is doing it anyway. The introduction of the technology is not what accounts for most of the delay but it is only when people apply for new passports, because their present passports have expired, that they will be forced down that route. It has nothing to do with a delay because it is desirable to hold things up while the technology is tested; they have chosen a route that depends entirely on the pace at which current passports expire.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. I am delighted that I gave way to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe because he has outlined an argument that is powerful indeed. Much of the debate has, if I may respectfully say so, been predicated on a false premise. My noble friend is absolutely right; the criteria that will apply to the new biometric passports are very similar to the requirements that will apply to the ID card. I say that because it is very important for us to hold that at the forefront of our minds. When we debated this issue last, it was pointed out that passports are not, of course, voluntary in the sense that you can have one whenever you want and with whatever information on it that you provide, and it was suggested that it was therefore nonsense to say that someone could pick or choose this first stage.
	We need to be clear that there are at the moment regulations and requirements governing the sort of information that one is obliged to give if one wishes to receive the benefit of a passport. It may therefore be right at this stage, just so that we consider the practicalities of it, to remind the House where the differences are. One must provide one's name, one's date and place of birth and one's address for both the national identity register and the UK database. The address held on the UK passport database is the one that is given on the application form. It is not suggested that the names and address of one's parents and their dates of birth should be provided on the proposed national identity register. At present, however, we do have to give that information if we want a passport.
	Under the proposed national identity register, there will be a unique personal number. There is no such unique personal number, but the passport is a document which has a number attached to it. For ID cards, we will have to provide our national insurance number, which we do not currently give for the passport. If one looks at the remaining provisions—name and details of a countersignatory, validation information, sex, photograph, digitalised signature, validity dates, employment status, et cetera—the only difference is that employment status will be provided in the proposed national identity register, and not provided in the UK database. So my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—perhaps I may finish this sentence—is right to say that the UK Passport Service will be obliged to keep that information on a database.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no one has that right, save and except the provisions which currently apply to security and other measures that are currently reflected for passports and the UK identity scheme. If noble Lords had their way, we would have the burden of the new system brought in by technology but we would not have the benefits. The benefits that we have put address the issues which have been properly raised by a number of my noble friends, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who I will for ever see as one of the most fast friends that I have. But, on this issue, we do not agree—for this reason. My noble friend said, and rightly so, that she has no objection to the improvements made on biometric passports. She fears the improper use of the database.
	I have to say to my noble friend that we fear it too, which is why we have put in the safeguards to make sure that there is an audit trail, a monitor and a commissioner. All those things do not currently prevail in relation to the UK passport database. We believe that we are making a step change which has to be addressed. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about the Salisbury convention. I do not agree for this reason: the Salisbury convention is not about semantics; it is about the essence of what was provided. When this matter went before the other place, the whole Bill went through and was approved in the form in which it was subsequently reintroduced. We made it plain that the Bill that would come back to this place and the other place after the election, if the electorate was so wise as to reinstate us, would be the same Bill. That is the background.
	I shall remind the noble Baroness what was said by the commission when it reviewed the whole working of the Salisbury convention. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who stands in high regard in this House, said that the commission's report stated at Recommendation 7:
	"The principles underlying the 'Salisbury Convention' remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the 'mandate' doctrine should continue to be observed: where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on any public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments".
	Let us be clear. We went to the electorate. We said, "We want ID cards". It will be a compulsory scheme in the long term.
	The whole point of the word "initially" is that in the first place it will be. Let us be frank: people have constantly in this House made reference to primary legislation. It may have escaped your Lordships, but this is primary legislation. We are considering not secondary legislation, but primary legislation, which the Government have done well.
	In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, we are as conscious of our history as any. On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I hope that I have reassured him that we do want a fair, just, proportionate and non-discriminatory procedure. We are doing that in a way that will enable us to introduce it incrementally, as was made clear by my noble friend Lord Macdonald. It is also the most efficacious way. On the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, we have made an incremental provision for the roll-out. The new local passport offices will start to open in October 2006. It is not yet possible to announce their precise locations as the availability of premises has yet to be finalised. However, there will be a balanced spread of offices throughout the United Kingdom in major towns and cities. Staff are being recruited and trained now and will be fully trained before the first of the offices opens in October. The programme is well under way and, it is hoped, will make full provision.
	We have come to the time when I respectfully suggest that this House should give way. We have debated this again and again. From the very start it was always our intention that the roll-out of passports should be the vehicle with which we would start the process towards a compulsory scheme. There has been no duplicity about it, and no misunderstanding. I accept absolutely that noble Lords opposite wish to take advantage of a perceived infelicitous point of drafting in our manifesto, but in reality that is all it is.
	It has been said that this has forced noble Lords opposite into an alliance. However, of course we are the Government and they are the Opposition; that is part of their function. But I hope that, in opposing, noble Lords will put the needs of this country first. We believe that it will inure to this country's advantage to have the procedures in place. I simply remind noble Lords that a number of practitioners in the field, not least those charged with our security provision,have made it clear that they see this as a major advantage. The present and previous Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police support it; the Association of Chief Police Officers supports it, as does the head of the Security Service, Eliza Manningham-Buller. Other supporters include Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France's top counter-terror investigator, who stated that identity cards will help Britain to protect itself against attacks by al-Qaeda and other sympathisers.
	We are not alone among common law countries to use this. Identity cards exist in common law countries such as Cyprus, Malaysia and Singapore. Equally, national population registers or ID cards are used in countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark—those are hardly totalitarian states. Somehow to imply that identity cards will suddenly change our way of life or who we are as British citizens is to do a disservice to the British character.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. D1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 227; Not-Contents, 166.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
	MOTION E
	21 Clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out "or is subject to compulsory registration"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment, but propose Amendment No. 21A in lieu—
	21A Page 37, line 34, leave out from "required" to end of line 35 and insert "to be entered in the Register in accordance with an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 and do agree to Amendment No. 21A proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.
	My Lords, I should explain that the Government decided in the other place not to seek to reverse Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which have now removed Clauses 6 and 7 from the Bill on compulsory registration and on the super-affirmative resolution procedure for bringing in compulsory registration through secondary legislation. Those clauses dealt with the requirement to register and to be issued with an identity card in the second stage of the identity card scheme, and for compulsion to be brought into effect by way of secondary legislation made under this Bill and subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
	The Government have accepted the view of your Lordships' House on those clauses, which have now been dropped. The Government have listened carefully to the points raised in both Houses. We have always said that this is designed to be a compulsory scheme, and it still is. We have always made it clear that compulsion will apply in the second stage of the scheme. The final move to compulsion will be when all United Kingdom residents aged 16 or over will be required to have an identity card with civil financial penalties for failure to register and be issued with an identity card. We have always been clear that that second compulsory stage will require a vote in both Houses.
	Our original proposal was for a type of secondary legislation known as the super-affirmative procedure, but we now accept that the use of secondary legislation in this way does not seem to have found favour, despite receiving approval from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on this Bill. We have therefore decided that fresh primary legislation will be the best way of moving to the second compulsory phase of the identity cards scheme. We have not set a precise timetable for moving to compulsion because that will depend on a number of factors, including the speed of rollout of the initial phase of the scheme, when we intend that the issue of identity cards will be linked to the renewal of passports and immigration documents.
	Moving to compulsion by the use of primary legislation rather than using the super-affirmative order route need not make any great difference to the timetable, however. Even though Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill have now been dropped, there will remain numerous references to compulsion in the Bill. In particular, Clause 9 remains, which provides for the issue of identity cards to those people who are subject to compulsory registration; Clause 15, on identity checks for public services; and Clause 18, on the safeguards prohibiting an identity card being required as the sole proof of identity in advance of compulsion, although it contains provisions relating to the position after compulsory registration. That is why the Government propose Amendment No. 21A to clarify in Clause 43 that the definition of, "subject to compulsory registration" now means required,
	"to be entered in the Register in accordance with an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act".
	That means that any references in the Bill to "compulsory registration" now relate to compulsion imposed in future primary legislation.
	Amendment No. 21, which the Motion disagrees with, would remove a consequential reference in Clause 8 to issuing an identity card to someone who is subject to compulsory registration. While this will have no effect until the further primary legislation referred to in Amendment No. 21A is in place, as I have made clear the ultimate intention is for there to be a compulsory scheme and so it would make sense for this reference to remain in Clause 8.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 21 and do agree to Amendment No. 21A proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I remind the House of what stage we are at in the Bill. It may be appropriate, bearing in mind the interchange that we are having, if I write to the noble Lord, as it seems to me that this does not necessarily spring from the amendment that we are currently considering; it goes more broadly. I would be happy to write on this. It may be necessary for me to track through what has been said so that, if I have unintentionally misled or confused the House, I can clarify the situation with greater precision. It might be easier to do it that way than from the Dispatch Box. I ask the forgiveness of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in advance, in the event that I have inadvertently misled or confused him in a way that I should not have done.
	The noble Lord also asked what we will use the card for. We will be able to use the cards to prove our identity. If the card becomes of high quality and if it is generally recognised, it will be used more and more as a means of proving identity. When we spoke about the earlier amendment, I made the point that as the utility of the identity card is enhanced—the convenience that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to—it is likely that the card will take primacy, particularly as a large volume of travel is within EEA countries. Therefore, the use of the passport, which is needed for travel to countries outside the EEA, will be a matter of balance and consideration.
	The noble Lord is right that the group of people—other than those who are in the third age—who do not tend to use passports are those in the lowest economic strata of society and lack the financial ability to travel as many of us do. That category of people needs to have proper provision. British citizens will find that this document will become more and more useful and more and more accessible. We have already dealt with why we think the specific linking of the passport to the identity card makes sense, for cost and for all the other reasons that we have set out. This House has spoken, asking the other place to think again. I am sure that the other place will think again and that, having thought again, it will express its voice even more clearly. Next time, maybe this House will have ears to hear it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50 and 51, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 47A, 48A, 50A and 51A.
	Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 would have the effect that the National Identity Scheme Commissioner would be appointed by Her Majesty rather than by the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will be aware that to a certain extent this is a presentational issue. There will be very little difference in practical terms whether the National Identity Scheme Commissioner is appointed by Her Majesty or by the Secretary of State.
	There are a variety of different statutory commissioners; some are appointed by Her Majesty, some are appointed by the Prime Minister and some are appointed by the Secretary of State. An example of a commissioner who is appointed by the Secretary of State is the Immigration Services Commissioner, whose general duty is to promote good practice on the part of those who provide immigration advice. Of the commissioners who are appointed by Her Majesty, there are those, such as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, who nevertheless report to the Secretary of State. As the House will be aware, the Police and Justice Bill merges those two inspectorates and a number of others into Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, who will report to the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General.
	It is therefore clear that, as a general rule, statutory commissioners report to a relevant Minister or Ministers. That is the case regardless of the mechanism of their appointment. The Information Commissioner is an exception. He is appointed by Her Majesty by Letters Patent, is a corporation sole and reports directly to Parliament. It is appropriate for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be appointed by the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State will have ultimate responsibility for the effective and efficient operation of the identity cards agency and it is right therefore that the commissioner should report to and be appointed by the Secretary of State. I assure the House that the appointment of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner will follow the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments rules and code of practice, as well as Home Office guidance on the appointment of public appointments made by Ministers.
	Amendment No. 50 would result in the commissioner reporting directly to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State, who would then lay the reports before Parliament. Amendment No. 51 would have the effect that the commissioner, not the Secretary of State, would have the final say over which matters would be excluded from his reports on the basis that publication would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention or detection of crime. We consider it necessary for the commissioner's report to be addressed to the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State—albeit in consultation with the commissioner—to remain responsible for determining which parts of the reports should be excluded before the reports are laid before Parliament. Noble Lords will be aware that there are precedents for the removal of sensitive aspects of reports of statutory commissioners before they are laid before Parliament. For example, similar mechanisms apply in relation to the Surveillance Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. It is our view that Clause 25 of the Bill contains adequate safeguards to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the commissioner's reports. All reports prepared by the commissioner will be laid before Parliament.
	In addition, there are only two reasons why matters may be excluded from the report that is laid before Parliament—if the publication of the material would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention and detection of crime. It is important to understand that, simply because a matter has been excluded from one report, it does not follow that the information will never be made public. If, for example, a matter was excluded due to an ongoing criminal investigation, once that matter was concluded there would be no reason why it could not appear in any subsequent reports.
	I simply do not think that the commissioner is the right person to make the decision about what should be excluded from his report. The Secretary of State, by virtue of his overarching responsibility, has a thorough overview of issues affecting national security and the prevention and detection of crime. For the amendment to be workable—that is to say, for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be capable of making an informed decision about what should and should not be excluded from the report—he would have to be briefed on national security and crime in the way that the Secretary of State is. Aside from being a disproportionate way of ensuring that certain sensitive information does not get into the public domain, that would significantly change the nature of the commissioner's role.
	Noble Lords will be aware that these amendments were disagreed to in the other place. These amendments were put to the vote and the will of the elected House was that they should not be accepted. We therefore believe that this House should accept the views of the other place and not press the Motion to a Division. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist on amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50 and 51. I hope, however, that noble Lords will feel that those amendments have served a useful purpose, because we have been able to debate them and to look carefully at how the commissioner will operate. That has meant that we have a greater degree of understanding and expectation of how the whole system will work. I hope that that will have reassured the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments 47, 48, 50 and 51, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 47A, 48A, 50A and 51A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the way in which he moved the amendment and for his thanks to me and to the Bill team for the way in which we sought to respond to various issues that were raised in Committee and usefully considered afterwards. I hope that I can satisfy him on the points he makes. I realise that he wants in Hansard a very clear definition of the position of the Olympic Delivery Authority. I shall seek to re-emphasise that again.
	The ODA, as a non-departmental public body, is accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I do not think that it is necessary for that to be on the face of the Bill because, as I sought to explain in Committee, it is a classification rather than a legal definition and as such does not have a proper place in the Bill itself. However, it does help to clarify the nature of this non-departmental public body. It will be recognised that the term NDPB covers a wide range of institutions. This one, like others, indicates that it operates at arm's length from government. I think that that is the important point as regards the noble Lord's amendment. This arm's-length arrangement has already been put in place as regards the ODA and will be reflected in the financial memorandum and management statement being prepared in relation to it. Once the authority has been set up and the right structures and people put in place, the Government will let the ODA get on with doing the job of preparing for the games.
	It may be helpful to reassure noble Lords that, as I said in Committee, where the Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers of control over the ODA these are included only as a backstop and could not be exercised in a manner that allowed the DCMS to interfere with the management of the ODA on a daily basis. I sought to reassure noble Lords that what was suggested at one stage—that the Secretary of State might be interested in expenses claims from members of the ODA—was an indication of exactly how we do not intend the ODA to operate. We want it to be arm's length from government and to have proper authority over all matters that are within its remit while nevertheless being responsible to the Secretary of State.
	We envisage that the expenditure threshold for the ODA will be set at about £20 million, subject to the Chief Secretary's agreement. That level should strike a balance between allowing the authority to get on with the job without day-to-day interference while still giving the Secretary of State oversight and accountability over very large projects, as the House and the other place would expect. In a similar way, a threshold will be agreed and set for staff salaries and other payments such as travel allowances. Only on rare occasions when payments are above the threshold would the authority need to refer to the DCMS, and that is likely only with the appointment of senior members of staff.
	The Bill provides powers enabling the Secretary of State to exercise some control over the ODA, but, again, such powers are part of the usual arrangement between any department and its appropriate NDPBs. These backstop powers of control are generally used only in two types of extreme situation: either where the body is failing or on those rare occasions when the decision to be taken is of such fundamental importance that it is a matter in which the Secretary of State needs to be involved.
	The House will be reassured to know that when submitting its annual report the authority must specify any direction that the Secretary of State has given during the year, thereby identifying the full accountability which it has exercised. This will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Secretary of State in giving directions to the authority and assess whether it is being overburdened. I hope that that gives the House and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who has pursued this issue with his customary diligence, adequate assurance that the department's relationship with the ODA will be at arm's length. It will allow the authority to get on with that very important job which we all recognise it has without undue interference. Consequently its classification will be that of an NDPB, and of course we will honour that classification.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying these issues again. We had a significant debate in Committee, as she indicated.
	The success of London's bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games was due, in large part, to the strength of the environmental commitments made in our bid to the International Olympic Committee. We want to deliver not only the best games ever, but we share with the noble Baroness the ambition to ensure that they are the most sustainable, too.
	I appreciate what she is seeking to achieve with these amendments, but as I emphasised in Committee, we have in the Bill what we think is a clear commitment to sustainable development. Clause 4(3)(b) requires the ODA to contribute to achieving sustainable development in exercising its functions as set out under Clause 4(1) and (2). But, as the Bill makes clear, the ODA should need to do so only where relevant to the exercise of its functions.
	The ODA is currently developing its procurement policy and sustainable development strategies which will enable it to meet the requirement set out in the clause. Both the ODA and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, LOCOG, take very seriously the commitments which have been made in the document, Towards a One Planet Olympics, to ensure that the games will be low carbon and zero waste, conserve biodiversity and promote environmental awareness.
	Whether in terms of the provision of transport infrastructure, or construction of the venues and other facilities, or water recycling, sustainability will be central to the planning and delivery of the games and the ODA will play a key role. The requirement at Clause 4(3)(b) is sufficient to make sure the ODA guarantees that it contributes fully to sustainable development in exercising all of its functions—but only where to do so is relevant.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that we entirely share her objectives. It was crucial to the argument that we put in our bid to the IOC, and that it bore excellent comparison with all the other bids in terms of its sustainable element. While the noble Baroness rightly sought reassurance on this issue, both today and in Committee, I hope that I have given her the reassurance necessary so that she feels able to withdraw her amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had an intensive debate in Grand Committee on disability issues. As a result, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and placed a copy of my letter in the House Library. In my letter, I set out to answer the questions which he had addressed on the issue of access for all. I hope that he felt that that letter offered significant assurance that the best practice standards and lifetime home standards will be adopted for homes in the Olympic park.
	The noble Lord will recognise that the ODA will be a public authority within the meaning of the relevant provisions of disability legislation and so will be subject to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as subsequently amended. When these requirements come into force, particularly in terms of the specific duties to publish equality schemes, the ODA will involve the views of disabled people in its planning and report on progress. It will be required to do that as a responsible public body.
	As I explained in Committee, the Government believe that these duties on the public sector are important tools in transforming our society into one that is more equal and provides greater opportunities for disabled people. Ministers are likely to bring forward the necessary regulations in the next year, and certainly well before we make significant developments with the Olympic park and access to it. So, although I cannot give a definite commitment about precisely when these regulations will come into force, the noble Lord can rest assured that we intend that they will do so as rapidly as possible for more general issues with regard to the nation, although there are certainly also relevant issues in relation to the Olympic Games.
	I turn to the noble Lord's amendments. I cannot accept Amendment No. 4, which would require the ODA to have regard to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality in carrying out its functions. Of course, the authority will be covered by race relations and disability discrimination legislation, and it will have specific duties to contribute to sustainable development and the long-term legacy of the games. But it is hard to see that an additional general requirement to promote "social inclusion", "diversity" or "equality" is either appropriate or necessary on top of the existing duties.
	As I said in Committee, I believe that it is for a body with a wide-ranging scope, such as the GLA, to deliver on those agendas. The ODA is a technocratic delivery agency and, as a public body, it will have regard to the disability Acts to which I referred and the regulations that we will bring into place subsequent to them. But I do not think that it would be appropriate to give it duties beyond its remit.
	I turn to the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. As I and my colleagues in the other place have already stated, we want to ensure that the games are accessible to all and we have started planning for disabled access. As I indicated in Committee, how can we think in terms of the Olympic Games and the Paralympics and not provide adequately for access by disabled citizens? Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are about ensuring that the Olympic transport plan takes account of the needs of disabled people. We have plans to do exactly that, and we will ensure that, in its final version, the Olympic transport plan takes full account of the kind of points to which the noble Lord referred. In particular, we will ensure that that the ODA consults representatives of the interests of disabled persons in drawing up the plan.
	I turn to the question of a list. The noble Lord has indicated certain bodies which should be consulted. Amendment No. 12 would require the ODA to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and other representatives of disabled groups. Clause 10(3) sets out the key organisations and people that the ODA will need to consult in preparing and revising the Olympic transport plan, but of course there are others whose input will also be crucial.
	As I said in Committee, it is not possible for us to produce an exhaustive list of bodies that the ODA should consult, but Clause 10(3)(k) makes provision for the ODA to consult such other persons as it thinks appropriate in order to meet the noble Lord's concern about the disabled—a concern which I share, as will the ODA. We fully expect the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to be one of the groups consulted. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 will enable the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to that effect if, for some reason, such consultation does not take place. I ask the noble Lord to recognise that we do not necessarily achieve these objectives by drawing up a list. Even if at this stage we were tempted to be exhaustive, we might well leave out from the legislation other bodies which we had not envisaged.
	However, I assure the noble Lord that the broad objectives that he expresses are entirely shared. It is obvious that the body to which he referred will need to be consulted. I know through vast experience in others areas of action and legislation that if the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee were not consulted, it would make its views known, and Secretaries of State do not ignore such representations. If it happened in this case, the Secretary of State would have the power to take action to ensure that consultation took place. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured by those comments and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I may be seeking the indulgence of the House, in which case I hope that it will be granted, but my noble friend's amendment covers broadly the same concepts as I sought to cover in an amendment in Committee. The Minister will recall that I was unable to move it at that stage, as I was participating in the debate in the Chamber relating to the Speakership in my capacity as chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers. I said that I would move the amendment on Report. I fear that I was foiled at the end of last week by taking to my sick bed, so my amendment was not put down. Nevertheless, it relates to the relationship with the local authorities responsible for aspects of public services. I hope that the Minister will be content if I expand on this somewhat.
	The amendment which I sought to move on the last occasion was to Schedule 1, page 31, line 15, at the end insert:
	"(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Authority includes at least one member who represents the interests of the London borough councils".
	As the Bill stands, there is no formal provision for any London local authority representation on the ODA, yet it has many provisions that will significantly affect the powers of local authorities, including the loss of powers in relation to planning, cleansing, lighting, transport and licensing functions, which of course are touched on in my noble friend's amendment.
	It is, of course, local authorities which have the current expertise in many of these areas. Naturally, the Olympics are an event of unprecedented scale, but it is fair to point out that many London local authorities not merely operate these services just on a day-to-day, run-of-the-mill basis, but have significant experience of running them to facilitate major national events.
	The City of Westminster, for example, which drew this amendment to my attention, has a fine record in delivering services to ensure the smooth setting up, running and completion of major national one-off events such as the Queen's Golden Jubilee, or, to pick a more recent example, the enormous Live 8 concert in Hyde Park, as well as large annual events such as the Notting Hill carnival and the London marathon. In 2012, Westminster will be the host borough for four Olympic events as well as the start of the marathon. Venues being used in Westminster will include Hyde Park for the triathlon, Regent's Park for road cycling, Lord's cricket ground for archery and Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball. These are venues where the local authority already has, in many cases, huge experience in facilitating big events.
	So it would seem just plain common sense for local authorities to be formally represented on the ODA in order to create a clear channel to feed in their many years' experience of operating the basics—services such as cleansing and lighting, which are the subject of the clause and which need to be got right. It is essential that there should be a voice at the table that can represent London local authorities to bring this knowledge and expertise to bear directly on the direction and operation of the ODA. The concept of an individual or authority having lead responsibility in pan-London matters is very familiar to anyone who has experience of private Bills in London, where a single authority promotes a Bill on behalf of the ALG as a whole. If the Minister casts his mind back, he will recall that when he was a London member he moved a 10-minute rule Bill to abolish the Corporation of the City of London—different times and different agendas.
	In terms purely of structure, the Government have clearly acknowledged that the model for the London fire authority, which includes borough representation, is working so well that they are actively consulting in rolling out this model to encompass other parts of the GLA family, such as Transport for London. Therefore, not adopting the structure for the ODA seems to run counter to the structural changes being made elsewhere in London.
	The Minister's response in Committee to my amendment, which I could not move but which was supported by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, was:
	"When we considered how the ODA ought to interact with the borough councils and with others that greatly impact in its work—and on which it is in many ways dependent—we took the decision that the ODA board members should be chosen not for their representative quality, which is not the role of the board, but for the expertise that they bring to the overall organisation of the infrastructure relating to the games".—[Official Report, 31/01/06; col. GC70.]
	It seems to me that the response that I have just cited is torpedoed by what is stated in Schedule 1, page 31, line 15, which immediately precedes the provision in the amendment that I failed to move in Committee and failed to table for Report. Schedule 1(3) states:
	"In appointing members of the Authority the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of their having experience relevant to—
	(a) the nature of the authority's functions, and
	(b) the places in relation to which they are likely to be exercised".
	Both those paragraphs seem to me to call for exactly the kind of experience that an appropriate representative from the London boroughs would contribute.
	I have sought the indulgence of your Lordships' House—the Whip is nodding that I have done so and I concur with him—but I should be grateful for a somewhat more extensive response than the Minister gave in Committee.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we discussed these issues extensively in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is doing himself an injustice by disparaging the quality of his amendments. They provoked an interesting debate, although not one to which I replied to the satisfaction of all concerned, otherwise noble Lords would not have tabled their amendments today; nor would the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have made the contribution, that he has. I shall try to do better this second time.
	I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has tabled the amendment because he seeks to limit the potential liability of the ODA to provide street lighting and cleaning. Otherwise, its powers, duties and obligations would appear to be almost limitless—up to the mythical Scotsman worried about lighting in his street well north of the Border. However, my noble friend Lord Borrie nailed the issue almost immediately with his characteristic perceptiveness. Clause 7 states that the ODA,
	"may arrange with an authority",
	for street lighting or cleaning to be carried out during the Olympic Games period.
	I fully appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am certain that he shares with me one objective. We want to ensure that, with the spotlight on London, London looks at its best in 2012. In fact, we want a great deal of the country to look at its best in 2012 because the Olympic Games go well beyond London. Clean, tidy and well-lit streets form an important part of the environment looking good. We must recognise that we are not just talking about visitors, vast numbers of whom we anticipate being here. Television can be very adept at picking up such detail. That is why we want the country to look as good as it possibly can. We want to put on the best games ever and we want to ensure that they take place in the best possible environment.
	To deliver that, the Bill gives the ODA the ability to enter into arrangements with authorities, not the authority that governs that benighted Scotsman—he would be benighted if he thought that his street was not well lit but that would not necessarily be relevant to the Olympic Games—but to those areas relevant to the planning and provision of the games and the focal point of everyone's attention while the games are on. The ODA will have a limited budget, so it will need carefully to consider in which areas it will need to enter into arrangements with particular authorities. It is bound to be selective, so I want to lie to rest the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that score.
	The ODA has the ability, not an obligation, to enter into arrangements and it will have to make the choice. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on this point. The Bill does not place any obligation on a local authority to provide additional services such as street lighting and cleaning. It states that the ODA may arrange with the local authority to improve cleaning and lighting. Of course, that will be part of an agreement struck by the ODA, exercising its proper authority, and the local authority concerned.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for emphasising that when the ODA approaches Westminster—I am sure that this is true for the other boroughs concerned—it will receive a welcome response. Several of those boroughs—Westminster is clearly an outstanding example—are used to putting on events to which the nation's and, sometimes, the world's, attention is focused, to a very high standard, including guaranteeing that the lighting and street cleaning are of the very highest standard.
	I also want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I sought to disabuse the Committee of the notion that that outcome could be achieved by a representative quality to the ODA's board members—that there should be a local authority representative on the ODA. We do not conceive of the ODA as being representative of interests in those terms. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with the leave of the House, by reading an extract from an advertisement for ODA board members, which lists the areas of expertise, interests and capacities that they may have. One of them mentions local government/communities. It states that the successful candidate:
	"will be able to give evidence of significant successful experience of community liaison; an understanding of key local, social and political issues in London; significant leadership experience within local government; a clear vision of how to ensure delivery of the legacy for the local area and its people, not just in terms of regeneration".
	So we are looking for expertise on the board that will reflect exactly the area that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was concerned to emphasise without thinking that that should be a representative role of an ODA member. When the board is drawn up, that is clearly an area of expertise and experience that we will expect to be represented by a board member or some board members.
	I emphasise that the Bill does not place the ODA under an obligation to provide street lighting and cleaning in all areas touched by the games. It will be for the authority to take the decision about which areas will be covered. It will of course negotiate with responsible authorities to ensure that it hits the highest standard possible. So the ODA is not being overstretched; it is not under an obligation. However, it has a clear remit to carry out its work and present the games in the best possible environment, which includes clean streets and well-lit areas. The authority will make sensible decisions, alongside appropriate local authorities, to guarantee that that is achieved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be reassured on those points and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall be brief. I strongly support my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who I thought put the case very clearly and succinctly in favour of bringing LOCOG within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that he had not previously disagreed with my noble friend and I, likewise, think that this is the first time that we have disagreed about the Bill.
	LOCOG may, as a private company, have a different status from the ODA, but it is simply the other half of the delivery of the Olympic Games for London. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may be completely right that many of the contracts that LOCOG is dealing with are commercial, but there are very clear exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, which states:
	"Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret . . . Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)".
	LOCOG need have no fear of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, but it is only right and proper that it should be subject to the terms of the Act.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced this amendment. She was kind enough not to challenge me on the contribution that I made in Committee where I may have given the impression that we had doubts on some aspects of the Freedom of Information Act: I indicated the difficulties with regard to the Act. The whole House knows that the Act has been in existence for only just over a year. There are teething problems and many challenges lie ahead. They do not just lie ahead: the Act has implicit in it a whole range of challenges over freedom of information.
	In Committee, I sought to wrestle with the challenging issue of where the lines are to be drawn, given our experience of the Act as it has operated up to now, among very disparate bodies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for indicating why the claims that LOCOG should be under the Freedom of Information Act should be resisted. LOCOG is very different from the Olympic Delivery Authority. We do not have the slightest hesitation that the ODA falls, as a public body, within the framework of the Act. We intend that it fulfils its duties in that respect.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, LOCOG is a different body. It is a private company, limited by guarantee. It will be almost entirely privately financed, with funding coming from private sector, commercial sponsorship. It also gets a sizeable sum from the International Olympic Committee. LOCOG has contractual obligations to the IOC under the host city contract, so it is very different from the Olympic Delivery Authority. It is not a public body in the same sense at all.
	We are not saying that LOCOG at some stage might fall within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act, but we know that it is not for this Bill to specify that. That is a consideration to be taken under the policy of the implementation of the FOI Act. For very obvious reasons, LOCOG fits into a different category altogether from those public bodies which we can identify, provided for out of public resource, which are bound to be open to questions in respect of freedom of information.
	I am not trying to hide behind some abstruse argument with regard to the Bill. We say only that freedom of information is not the business of this Bill. Freedom of information, the Act and how we implement it are proper concerns of this House and, of course, the other place. We all know that we have, and will have, a considerable amount of work on decisions on freedom of information issues. But it would not be appropriate for us, within the framework of this Bill when it becomes an Act, to define LOCOG, when we have to consider it in the round with a whole range of other institutions and where they fit into freedom of information.
	If I appear negative about freedom of information, I hope that it is not because it has been suggested that as a Government representative I am cool about the concept of freedom of information—very far from it. We are implementing the Act and making very great progress in the openness of information for our society. I am indicating that I am not prepared to consider freedom of information within the framework of this Bill. That is why I want the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. If I had been able to resist the robustness of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I was in even more trouble when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, produced his forensic and legal skill with regard to the amendment. Of course, the whole House will recognise that, once the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, joined the ranks, change was in the air. I hope therefore that the amendment commends itself to the House.

Lord Clement-Jones: In moving Amendment No. 27 and speaking to other amendments up to Amendment No. 30, I want to thank the Minister for his letter of 27 February. It is a recognition of the strength of the arguments that were made in Grand Committee. Regrettably, I still believe that the Minister has not yet grasped the exact concerns of the newspaper and broadcasting industry.
	The Government's wording of paragraph 8 in Schedule 4 and their position generally on this issue seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the distinction between editorial and advertising or a needless concern that the boundaries between the two can be wilfully manipulated. In his letter, the Minister said that "most" journalistic activities are unlikely to suggest an association. On page 2 of the letter he says that,
	"all journalistic practice is exempt from the association right created in Schedule 4".
	There is no disagreement there, but on page 1 of the letter he also refers to,
	"journalistic use that does not seek to advertise".
	That is a contradiction in terms.
	The Minister is clearly worrying about what he calls advertorials, but the key issue is what journalistic activities he is worried about. Journalistic or editorial usage does not advertise. If newspapers carry advertisements they want to be paid for them. The simple and central distinction is that, broadly, advertising is space paid for by a third party, the content of which is controlled by that third party. The practices that he described therefore either do not happen or are advertisements, not editorial.
	Concerns in the industry have been exacerbated by the fact that the Minister referred to,
	"ostensible news broadcasts which are really 'advertorials'",
	and not "genuine news broadcasts". Newspapers or broadcasters do not issue disguised advertisements in the guise of news bulletins. The Commercial Radio Companies Association and Sky television in particular have both emphasised to me that such things are already prevented by law from broadcasting on either commercial radio or television. For example, Ofcom requires a clear separation between editorial and advertising content.
	On the other hand, is the Minister in some way implying that news items based on, say, a press release from a major public company or company's annual report will not be considered bona fide editorial usage? If so, the industry has a further cause for concern. Quite apart from LOCOG looking over editors' shoulders about their choice of words, it seems that it will also be judging news selection. This concern is heightened by the Minister's reference to anyone who has even inadvertently it seems created an association,
	"for the purposes of a news story, to demonstrate the necessity of their actions".
	If that is not interference in editorial freedom, I do not know what is.
	Surely, the Government cannot be implying that non-news items are not journalistic. That would fly in the face of previous assurances given on Schedule 4. There are all manner of examples of standard non-news editorial items. Journalists may, for example, write reviews for restaurants, entertainment venues, books and so forth, but those are editorial not advertising. The difference between us seems to be that the Government take the view that something can be journalistic and yet still infringe, which is why they feel they need the necessary incident test. The view of the newspaper and broadcasting industry is that if something is editorial—not advertising—it should unequivocally fall within the provisions of paragraph 8 without the need for newspapers or broadcasters to justify either their selection of news and editorial material or the words used in them.
	With regard to paragraph 8(c), the letter gives a fair and accurate summary of the Panini case, including the central question the court would ask itself: why was the infringing representation used? That brings us straight back to our concern that a court might take a hard line and say, "To sell newspapers or make money for a commercial broadcaster". That explains why we want the other parts of paragraph 8 amended, because the industry does not want to have to rely on paragraph 8(c) in the face of the Panini case.
	In conclusion, the basic principle these amendments try to get across is the fact that editorial is editorial, and ipso facto legitimate. Any judgment by LOCOG of why particular news items were included, or the words used in them, would be utterly unacceptable. Advertisements, however, are advertisements, no matter what they look like or who they are written or spoken by. This amendment is not a recipe for loopholes. There are certain words set out in the Bill which, when used together, still raise the possibility of infringement of the London Association right by journalists, or by editorial.
	Amendment No. 29 is important too, since the exception itself in paragraph 8(b) needs widening. Inclusion of those words about the Olympic Games means that the exemption is too narrow. I spoke at length on that in Grand Committee. I welcome the fact that the Minister wrote, but it is clear that his letter urgently requires further clarification, and I hope that the Minister will give us that today. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is certainly a serious issue and I will need to stick fairly closely to the brief to meet the requirements of the debate which has been presented with such precision by the four noble Lords who have contributed to it. I make it clear that we are not talking about television or radio regulated media. As we all recognise, broadcasts are regulated by a regulatory body. We are not in any way, shape or form anxious about broadcasts. We are worried about printed material but we are not worried about newspapers. As noble Lords have emphasised, it is clear who has paid for a certain section of a newspaper. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, emphasised that.
	We are concerned about flyers that look like news stories or newspapers but whose purpose is to link a product with the games and which purport to give news or information but are actually involved in a close association between the news which is supposedly being given and the product which is being advertised or sold. That is the area with which we are trying to deal. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others who expressed great concern about the general freedom of the press—certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, suggested, the press are a major organ of communication in our society—that we do not have the slightest intention of inhibiting press freedom. We would not want to do it because this Government are as concerned about press freedom as anyone else in the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised, we are concerned to ensure that the Olympic Games get the best possible reception from journalists. However, we have to safeguard certain aspects, phrases and terms associated with the Olympic movement and the Olympic Games from those who seek commercial advantage from them. We discussed this issue at great length in Committee and it was discussed in the other place. I want to put on record my confidence that this Bill will do nothing whatever to prevent legitimate editorial or journalistic practices in relation to the London games. I shall set out for noble Lords how the London Olympics association right relates to editorial and journalistic practices and the specific editorial and journalistic exemption that we have created.
	The London Olympics association right, created by Schedule 4, will only be infringed by someone who creates an association between a good or service and the London games—not any other form of comment; not any other form of discussion; not any other news story; but a deliberate attempt to associate a good or service with the games. An association, as defined in the Bill, is an unauthorised commercial, contractual, corporate or financial connection with the games. In considering whether any news report or magazine article would infringe the London Olympics association right, we therefore need to consider whether it would create such a commercial, contractual or other connection between a good or a service and the games. That is a pretty high threshold for any article to cross.
	Everything else is, of course, part of the cherished freedoms of comment of the press. If the London Olympics association right is infringed in those terms, we need to deal with that. A current affairs programme reflecting on London's success in winning the right to host the games; an evening news bulletin about the preparations for the games; or a newspaper article reporting on the opening ceremony or 100 metres final in 2012 would not suggest any form of commercial, contractual or corporate connection with the games. We would not expect them to; and they do not.
	However, so important is the right of the press to be able to report on all aspects of 2012 and the games, we have created a specific defence—a "backstop" if you will—further to protect all legitimate editorial and journalistic practices from infringing the London Olympics association right, which we need. We have had to be realistic and balanced about this issue. In setting out the exemption, we have had to ensure that we did not inadvertently create something that could be used by those who are intent on exploiting for commercial gain an unauthorised association with the games. Our advice is that the defence that we have created in the Bill strikes the right balance. It gives the rare journalist who in reporting on the games creates a commercial association between goods and services and the games, the opportunity to demonstrate why it was necessary for them to do that, but it will not allow others cynically to exploit the defence for a purpose for which it was not intended.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 remove the important qualifying phrase "necessary incident" from that defence. In this short debate, my noble friend Lord Borrie particularly emphasised the issue of "necessary incident". We discussed that concept extensively in Committee as well. Our firm legal advice is that we have got this position right. The reason that the term "necessary incident" is contained in the exemption is to avoid creating a situation whereby someone could commercially exploit the games and rely on hiding behind a journalistic defence. The term "necessary incident" is therefore a means by which to prevent, for example, published "advertorials", the real motive of which is not to communicate information but to commercially exploit the games by promoting a product or a service.
	Noble Lords also expressed concerns in Committee about the effect that the Court of Appeal's decision in Panini would have on those defences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to that case, and I commented on it in my letter to him. I hope that noble Lords will accept that, to the extent that the case is relevant to the Bill—and here we must be careful to remember that the decision actually concerned provisions of the Copyright Act and therefore does not lay down a definitive or binding interpretation of this Bill—it gives some useful guidance on the way that a court might approach one of the defences set out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 28 ensures that the journalistic exemption extends to all publishing or broadcasting whether about the Olympics or not. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was concerned about the situation in which an article about east London referred to the Olympics by way of context. I reassure noble Lords that this sort of activity will of course be allowed, and the Bill as drafted already allows for that. Adding the words,
	"any editorial usage including without limitation",
	to paragraph 8 of schedule 4 is unnecessary, as it would duplicate what we have already provided for in the Bill.
	The Bill currently provides an exemption for the incidental inclusion in a literary, dramatic or artistic work of a representation likely to create an association with the London games. Amendment No. 29 extends that exemption to an advertisement of that literary or artistic work. If something is an incidental inclusion in an artistic work, it should be an incidental inclusion only in any accompanying advertising. Were that the case, the current drafting of the Bill would exempt such an advert, as it would be covered by the "incidental inclusion" defence. It would be a strange situation indeed if an incidental reference to the games in a piece of art, for example, became much more prominent when that artistic work was being advertised for sale. Indeed, the amendment would create a rather strange loophole whereby someone could unduly exaggerate a reference to the games when advertising an artistic work that only referenced the games incidentally.
	I understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about the exemptions that should apply to the London Olympics association right. I recognise the sincerity and effectiveness with which those fears have been expressed. This is an important area, and I do not seek to minimise it in any way, shape or form. I listened carefully to what was said in Committee, which prompted my somewhat lengthy letter to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have listened to powerful representations again today. I am clear, however, that the Bill as currently drafted does not have the undesirable effect that noble Lords are suggesting. I hope that I have given assurances that we have thought through this issue with the greatest of care. The issue of freedom of the press is of the greatest significance to this country, in all our work and to a free society.
	In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that those concerned with the Olympic games might even have a narrower perspective of having the media very much on our side with regard to the games. Trying to present the games in the best possible light and hoping that others reflect that is a laudable objective, and I have not the slightest doubt that we will not succeed in every case. However, we must defend the London Olympics association right and have some element of restriction. We are doing that within the framework of advertisement. When dealing with editorial copy, I assure my noble friend Lord Borrie that we are talking not about comment in newspapers with the intent of effective communication of information but about printed material that purports to look like a newspaper and to convey news but is an advertisement or flyer that associates a good or service with the games. We must defend ourselves against that kind of content.
	On that basis, we have carefully defined the legal grounds on which infringement would take place. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that far from being cavalier and not mindful of the real concerns about press freedom, the Government have been concerned to defend certain words and contents from unfair, improper and illegal advertisement, while having a prime commitment to freedom of comment, freedom of the press and freedom of broadcasting. I hope that the noble Lord will think that he can safely withdraw his amendment.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. There is no doubt but that since Grand Committee—indeed, since his letter—he has refined his arguments. He tells us that he is not talking about radio or television broadcast and that he is worried about printed material but not newspapers. He is actually concerned about flyers that purport to be linked to the games. As the whole of this debate shows, the provision is a very heavy sledgehammer to crack a nut of a flyer. Is that what the Government are really worried about—a flyer? We have the whole of the broadcasting industry and the whole of the newspaper industry excited by the draconian terms of this Bill but the Government are concerned with prohibiting a flyer. It seems an extraordinary situation.
	If that were the only area of concern I suppose I could stop there and say, "Why do the Government not rephrase the Bill so that they actually catch what they want to catch?". However, the Minister went on to say, "We have to safeguard certain terms owned by the Olympic movement from those seeking commercial advantage". He is confident that the Bill will do nothing to infringe press freedom but, "That means that we have to look at how the London association right relates to journalistic practices. It is trying to catch only an association between goods or services and the games". But then he went on to the really dangerous thing which sent shivers down my spine and said, "We have to consider whether a news item does this". That is an extraordinary statement. He is saying that if a journalistic item creates an association between goods or services and the games, then LOCOG is entitled to take action against that newspaper. That is an extraordinary statement. I think it means that all those who are concerned about these provisions are entirely justified. The Minister went on to say that these provisions "strike the right balance". However, merely what I have just said demonstrates the contrary and that this whole "necessary incident" phrase needs to be removed.
	With the best will in the world I no longer really can argue that the Government misunderstand the situation. I have to argue that the Government are intent on doing what the Minister has said, which frightens me even more. I suppose one could say that one seeks clarification in Grand Committee and then receives further clarification as time goes on. Usually that creates a sense of security—assurances are given and one can assure those who are affected by a provision that these clarifications, read into the record, will help if action is taken. However, I can give no such reassurance to those who have briefed me for this debate and who have demonstrated concerns to quite a number of noble Lords. I cannot give that assurance. In fact, I am more frightened about this provision than when I started.
	Obviously it is late and I cannot press an amendment now on Report. However, subject to consultation with colleagues on all Benches I may well bring this back on Third Reading. I very much hope that the Minister will consider the next steps and whether he can do other things to provide assurance within both the newspaper and the broadcasting industry.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we had a long debate on this and another amendment in Committee. The alternative amendment proposed to insert:
	"The London Olympics association right shall have effect from,"
	not, as in this amendment, "1 January 2007", but "31 December 2007"—quite a significant change. I am pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Borrie and Lord Pendry, have put their names to this amendment, which is where I started.
	I made it clear, both in our meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Coe, in the leader's office, and in Committee, that this amendment struck a balance of reasonableness between the needs and, maybe, the demands of LOCOG and the Government and the needs and concerns of the industry. I still feel that if the Minister is able to accept the amendment, that balance will be achieved. It gives the advertising industry more space than it was expecting and needs—it gives the industry nine months: the best part of a year. It also gives LOCOG, more than any other organiser of an Olympic Games, five whole years of comprehensive protection to sell to its would-be sponsors. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for re-tabling this amendment. The Minister will see, as the noble Lord said, that others—and particularly those on these Benches—have, in the spirit of compromise, agreed to put our weight behind it. That represents a considerable movement. It represents a desire to recognise to whatever degree is possible the concerns of LOCOG that there may be some commercial detriment if the timetable was shifted as the original amendment suggested.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a copy of the letter that he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, following the Committee, clarifying the Qantas/Ansett ambush marketing example. That was extremely useful, particularly when the Minister said that some of what he said about that case may have been based on inaccurate information. I felt that that was a rabbit drawn out of a hat, perhaps somewhat hastily. The letter goes on to talk a lot about the case, but still fails to make a good argument about why the issue was raised in the first place in relation to a case concerning duration. It is not unfair to say that the letter only demonstrates the irrelevant nature of the Qantas/Ansett example. Qantas' campaign took place after Sydney had introduced its equivalent Olympic legislation.
	On the other hand, the London Olympics association right under this Bill would catch any such mischief, if, for example, Virgin were to attempt a similar campaign in relation to British Airways, if the latter was an official sponsor of the London games and Virgin was not. Indeed, Ansett's complaint against Qantas was eventually settled out of court after the former brought a civil case against the latter under existing Australian legislation governing trade practices.
	I do not believe that the Sydney association right was available to it. Even if that were not the case, it seems beyond belief that an ambush marketeer would invest time and money in a campaign that attempted to create some kind of association a full five and a half or six years before the opening ceremony of the London games in 2012, knowing that it would have to cease on 1 January 2007 or risk being pursued by LOCOG for breach of the London association right.
	At the minimum, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the industry is concerned that Schedule 4 will come into place without the draft interpretive guidance. We had quite a debate about some of the contents of the guidance. Clearly it is in early draft stage and there is still considerable work to be done. A number of grey areas need to be clarified and, indeed, the Minister had the grace to accept that there was room for improvement in the content of the draft guidance notes. All anticipate that it will take months rather than weeks for LOCOG to finish off what London 2012 has started in terms of drafting the guidance notes.
	As we have seen during Grand Committee and Report, the guidance notes are important. People will rely on them and it is important that they are done properly. It will be extremely unfair to commerce if the guidance notes are not available and yet the London association right bites. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would provide the advertising industry and the relevant pre-vetting bodies with an extra eight months or so in which to prepare carefully for the onset of the association right. That is an important point that would assist in its regulation.
	The amendment would still provide LOCOG with a total of six years over which it could seek to enforce the association right. That is considerably longer than the protections offered to official sponsors at any previous games or, indeed, at Turin, Beijing or Vancouver. As was mentioned in Grand Committee, it is notable that the organisers of the three sets of games that will precede the London games are having little difficulty in attracting sponsorship, despite having a shorter period of association right. I can see no reason why the organisers of London 2012, which has been impressively organised so far, should not be able to imitate or surpass the success of the organising committees for those games once they have evolved into LOCOG post-Royal Assent.
	I believe that the Government should cede to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It would be greatly welcomed; it would provide much greater certainty; and it would be much fairer to those who will be affected by the London association right.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and I support it. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, stated the main purpose of postponing the operation of the association right to 1 January, and those arguments were elaborated upon by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
	It seems to me that if, as the Bill stands, the association right—and the exclusivity that goes with it—comes into operation on Royal Assent, it will have a total of six and a half years in which to operate before the start of the London Olympic Games, and that is unprecedented. It was not so at Sydney and it was not so at any other previous Olympic Games. It is an example of the exaggerated way in which the Government—certainly at the beginning of our discussions on this legislation and, more importantly, in the discussions that took place between the Minister and others—have felt that they have had to dot every "i" and cross every "t" and do not only what the IOC has asked of them but something in addition to prove that we are worthy of this splendid opportunity of the London games.
	In the fullness of time and in view of the debates that we have had at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and again today, I ask the Minister to think about this carefully. He knows that there is no precision about what will infringe the association rights and what will not. He and his officials have been most helpful in showing some of us the drafts of guidance notes. I recall, when looking at them, that they were extremely extensive. Almost inevitably, they raised nearly as many questions as they answered because there is such a variety of ways in which the association rights could be breached.
	At the very least, I ask the Minister to think about this, between now and eight months' time—1 January 2007—when we shall probably see those guidance notes in their final form and, more importantly, so will the advertising industry and they will then know what they can and cannot do. If the breach can, in theory, be operative from a date in June or July when the Bill receives Royal Assent, you are asking a large number of professional, advertising industry people to try to judge without that guidance whether they can do this or cannot do that. I do not think that is right. The Minister has recognised that there are some grey areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it a moment ago. It would be fairly simple and not a major concession for the Government to agree to this amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is not only suggesting that I compete with the noble Lord, Lord Coe, over a mile, but it now seems to be a mile over hurdles. That would guarantee that I had not taken the first bend when the noble Lord, Lord Coe, had finished the race.
	I will seek to give my noble friend an answer, because I hear what he says about this being a compromise amendment. I am not quite able to regard it as such, for reasons I will identify in a moment. He has raised important issues, however, and I will respond particularly to his challenge to explain how we intend to go on if, as is our intention, we proceed with these restrictions after Royal Assent.
	We debated this issue at some length in Committee, where three main areas of concern were expressed. They have been reiterated this evening with the emphasis, inevitably with this amendment, being placed on the third. First was the effect that the London Olympic association right might have on small business. Genuine concerns have been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill that many small businesses could unwittingly infringe the London Olympic association right, and would then feel the full force of a civil action from LOCOG as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was particularly concerned about this in Committee.
	Secondly, concern was expressed at the possibility that companies will have invested in advertising campaigns that may end up infringing the London Olympic association right before they were aware of the provisions contained within Schedule 4. As was emphasised in Committee, this is particularly true of broadcast campaigns that often have a long production time. Thirdly, noble Lords, in Committee and on this amendment today, have questioned why this new provision needs to be commenced so far out from 2012.
	I have listened carefully to the debate this evening, as I did in Committee. The House will recognise that, through my officials, we have been in regular contact with the advertising industry, which also raised its concerns about the commencement of Schedule 4. To do justice to this debate, I will—not apologise—warn that this will be a lengthy reply to an amendment of cardinal importance.
	I take it for granted that we are all agreed that the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the games is wrong. The London Olympic association right is designed to prevent a company from associating itself with the games unless it has paid to do so. This principle must hold this year, just as it will in the weeks leading up to the opening ceremony. We cannot enforce it until the legislation is in place, but the principle obtains, enjoined on us by the International Olympic Committee in some crucial respects. We intend to observe that principle.
	LOCOG has already said that it will take a reasonable and proportionate approach in exercising the rights given to it by virtue of Schedule 4, particularly in the few months after Royal Assent. I take on board the points made by several noble Lords in this debate—in very strong terms by my noble friend Lord Pendry, with his vast experience of these issues—but we do not want people to fall foul of these situations in circumstances into which they have inadvertently blundered, either through ignorance or because they already had campaigns running well before the guidance was available, or the Act had received Royal Assent.
	LOCOG has already taken a number of important steps to ensure that the industry is fully informed about the London Olympic association right and knows how to interpret it. LOCOG has produced a set of guidelines, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, on how to interpret the provisions of Schedule 4. The guidance has been shared with the Advertising Association, the radio and broadcast clearing houses and others that represent advertising interests. The guidance has been drafted in close co-operation with the advertising industry to ensure it is as comprehensive and clear as possible.
	LOCOG will be passing a further draft of these guidance notes to the advertising industry by the end of the week and will certainly have a final version posted on its website by Royal Assent. So advertisers will know the definitive guidance by Royal Assent.
	Over the coming months LOCOG will also be undertaking a significant programme of education. It is producing no fewer than 11 sector-specific guides, outlining what the London Olympic association right means for the people it is likely to affect most. These sector guides will be tailored to specific interests, ranging from the advice that LOCOG will give its own sponsors and suppliers, right through to the advice that it will give to non-commercial organisations and national sporting governing bodies. It will of course include specific guides for the advertising industry and the media.
	LOCOG will also be working through the 2012 Nations and Regions Group—a group that LOCOG established to ensure that the whole of the country is engaged with and informed about the games. My noble friend Lord Pendry expressed regret that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, was not in his place at the later stage in the evening, although I am sure that we are all grateful for the keen interest he took earlier in the evening on other areas of controversy in the Bill. But I have no doubt that, had he been here, he would have been able to attest to the virtues that I have sought to express in relation to how LOCOG is going about its very responsible job of ensuring that the advertising industry knows just where it stands.
	The regional development agencies are key partners in the Nations and Regions Group and we will be looking to them to help to communicate with their regions' businesses about the implications of the Bill. I am also pleased to put it on the record today that LOCOG has committed to hosting a seminar with representatives from small businesses, including the Small Business Service and other trade associations, to ensure that they are fully informed about what the London Olympic association right means for their members.
	I understand the concerns expressed this evening. LOCOG has committed to taking a lenient approach in the first few months of this right being in place, and there is a clear and comprehensive process for engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises—a matter emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in introducing the amendment. I hope that that will give noble Lords some considerable comfort on this particular issue.
	I want to reiterate the value of ambush marketing, and why the IOC has asked us to take steps to prevent this sort of activity in relation to the 2012 games. Ambush marketing in relation to major international sporting events is becoming more and more prevalent. Sporting events do not come any bigger than the Olympics. The value of ambushing the games and the threat of commercial exploitation do not get any greater than for these games in 2012. That is why, with our experience, we need to prevent from the outset deliberate campaigns by big multinational companies that seek commercially to exploit the games.
	I do not think it would be wise to create a situation where companies are free to exploit the games from now until the beginning of next year, which would be the burden of this amendment if it were passed. It is not the inadvertent breach by a local corner shop or a bed and breakfast where the proprietor would not be expected to be well informed on these issues that the immediate commencement of Schedule 4 is aiming at. We are aiming at a deliberate and persistent ambush marketing campaign that could damage LOCOG's ability to sign up their sponsors and raise the money that it needs to finance the games.
	LOCOG will be signing up its first sponsors in the autumn of this year. It needs to do that with the legislation in place to provide certainty to its potential sponsors that their rights will be entirely protected. LOCOG also needs to go to its sponsors in a marketplace that has not already been affected by people who have sought to exploit the games; it must be able to offer its sponsors the opportunity to activate their sponsorship rights immediately.
	It is worth remembering just how much LOCOG must raise. On an operating budget of £2 billion, LOCOG must raise a third from local sponsorship revenues. That is a far larger sum than any previous Olympic organising committee has had to raise and, effectively, means doubling the sports sponsorship market in the United Kingdom. That is a major task for and a major challenge to LOCOG. We are all rightly optimistic about it; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and his colleagues exude confidence about it. We all know what an enormous success the London games will be. But they need every support that they can get. They certainly need the legislative support that guarantees their position when they approach their sponsors.
	Although LOCOG can offer sponsors one of the most recognised and valued brands in the world, sponsors of the Olympics get only a limited time at the games. What is more, there is no advertising in the arenas in which the games are played. When you are watching the competition on television, there will be no sponsors' advertisements inside the arena. Given that the BBC is the host broadcaster here in the United Kingdom, sponsors will have no opportunity to advertise their association with the games during commercial breaks in the BBC's television coverage.
	That is why the concept of associating with the games is so important and why we must carefully protect the rights of those companies that will pay for that privilege. It is not just about protecting sponsors' rights, important though that is. If LOCOG does not raise the sponsorship revenues that it needs to stage the games, the shortfall will be met from the public purse. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said on that issue and throughout the debate on the various measures designed to protect the Olympic brand. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made today. However, we must think very carefully indeed when we are considering such substantial sums, which are attainable through sponsorship but which, should they not be attained through any failure on our part, would fall as a duty on the public purse.
	I am grateful for all the work that has been done today to improve the Bill. As noble Lords will recognise, I have tabled amendments out of respect for the strength, cogency and accuracy of some arguments made in Committee. However, I do not regard the amendment as a compromise; I regard it as a compromising amendment. It compromises the ability of LOCOG to achieve its necessary financial results from sponsorship. That is why it is very important that the London Olympic association right comes into force on the day of Royal Assent. I understand that concerns have been expressed, particularly on behalf of small businesses which have limited resources to make themselves aware of all the issues involved, but I hope that I have succeeded in allaying some of the concerns about what might be perceived as some ignorance about the implications of the right.
	LOCOG is bent on informing all those concerned, and we are in the closest consultation with the advertising industry. But we do need to protect this right, which is central to the success of the games. We owe it to LOCOG, to the work that it is doing now, and to the challenge that lies before it. We dare not add extra burdens. This is not only about the interests of all of us, including the vast majority of the public who are committed to the games being a success; we have a responsibility to the public purse, and if we do not deliver down one channel, we will be obliged to deliver down another. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment on the basis of my arguments.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am disappointed, although I am not surprised. I should like to put firmly on record my appreciation of the seriousness and thoroughness with which the Minister has addressed my amendment and the whole issue. The first stage of that was his amendment earlier today, which reversed the assumption of guilt process. The second stage was his amendments, which have opened up the Bill to enforce more consultation on the issue with whichever groups and people are considered the right ones in the industry.
	I am also much less concerned than I was, having heard about the regulations. I sincerely hope that the final copy of those regulations will be published and in the hands of the industry and those who need them before Royal Assent. I see the Minister nodding, for which I thank him. I am also encouraged by the amount of education, by the seminars and the guidance, and generally by the fact that LOCOG has clearly tackled this serious and large communication problem. I raised these subjects in Committee, as I was very concerned about the amount of communication that LOCOG needed throughout the sporting world and the advertising industry if there was not to be injustice at some stage as a result of this Bill.
	I still feel that it would have been more satisfactory if there had been a little more time. I was expecting Royal Assent in April but, if that is not until June or July, we are talking of a matter of only two or three months. However, I do not want to take any particular chances, and I believe that the Minister, the Government and LOCOG really do believe that this date is critical to their potential achievement, particularly in their fundraising. I accept what the Minister says about the value of ambush marketing to the ambushers and the temptations offered by those businesses, both large and small.
	We can control only those within our own country. The real story about Qantas was that it targeted foreign Olympic associations and athletes. As far as I can see, that is an area that we cannot control, which is very relevant to the ambush-marketing problem. I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment very much more eruditely than I have placed the arguments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.